A march in memory of Boris Nemtsov took place on Saturday - at least, the organizers said, but in the end he turned into a march-rally for a change of power, against amendments to the Constitution, as well as against everything bad and for all the good. As is usually the case with the opposition.
The protest community decided to speculate on the name of Nemtsov, to hide behind them, to use the date of death as an information line, in order to be able to gather people. And this is quite predictable, because the opposition does not conduct any special activities now. To gather everyone against everything, while signing with the name of Nemtsov, is the new trend of the past month. Is it that the lazy one was not afraid to think for Boris, to speak out, that he would condemn, for which he opposed. All these “I’m sure he would ...” and “he would be one hundred percent ...” do not honor the opposition leaders. No one knows what Nemtsov would be now. But even those who were very far from him or in open conflicts, for example, citizen Milov, considered it normal to exploit the name of the murdered politician, boasting about his acquaintance and even the fact that in his kitchen "there is still a chair where Boris was sitting."
After death, people are not spoken about badly. But in this case, after the death of Nemtsov, they speak for him, they attribute to him both good and impossible.
Nemtsov was not a primitive and predictable person, so I am amazed at the confidence with which he is now credited with words and actions.
No one can know how he would behave, except that you can communicate with spirits. Looking back and leafing through his life, you understand that he was never unambiguous and often acted contrary to himself. No one can know how Nemtsov would behave now, for which he would speak. And maybe he was not the most consistent, but he was honest. Yes, and it's normal to change your mind, be flexible, while remaining stable. Boris Nemtsov was like a popular slime among young people - he knew how to adapt. This is exactly what the LOMs of the real opposition lack right now - to be mediators, to be adequate, to be negotiable. Boris Nemtsov was able to conduct constructive dialogs. Undoubtedly, he was with his flaws and cockroaches, but he always tried to come to an agreement and always achieved the result.
On Saturday, the "general civil protest" gathered everyone - both the left and the right, those who would never shake hands on the sidelines, as if mimicking the "German" style of doing business. The opposition, apparently, believes that such a union will give them strength, the ability to act against the government, but in the end it gives blur, disperses the goal and objectives. Collecting everyone who is against any kind of injustice gives quantity, but does not give quality. Such ranks can never agree among themselves.
At the last rally, there were flags of both the European Union and Ukraine, some advocated the release of the so-called political prisoners, some opposed arbitrariness, some opposed the abortion ban, many demanded a change of government - and as the main news outlet (apparently forgetting about the death of Nemtsov and what exactly the date of five years after the murder should have become one) - amendments to the Constitution.
To gallery page
Not the requirement to complete the investigation of the murder, find and voice the name of the customer and perpetuate the name of Nemtsov in the form of a bridge / street, but the amendments to the Constitution, which the majority of those gathered did not read. Just as, I am sure, they did not read the current original text.
Oppositionists are already in a hurry to write that the “Kremlin propagandists” do not understand what exactly this is what Nemtsov would like: to hide behind his name, to use his name in the fight against “irremovable power”, because this was supposedly a matter of his life.
But I hasten to write that the last thing to do is to dance on the bones of the murdered. Boris Nemtsov deserves an adequate memory. Do not procrastinate his image in your dubious deeds.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.